Talk:Timeline of the 2014 Pacific hurricane season

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Timeline of the 2014 Pacific hurricane season article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Timeline of the 2014 Pacific hurricane season is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 7, 2024	Featured list candidate	Promoted

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Why do editors feel compelled to use the word "rapidly" on this timeline article?

Using "rapidly" goes against Wikipedia's neutral point of view. In fact, see the part where the page says "Avoid stating opinions as facts." That's precisely what this article is doing. I tried to make the fix, but I was reverted as I went "against consensus". However, not everyone agrees. To maintain a neutral poitn of view these words should be removed. Why do other editors insist that "rapidly" remains? 68.111.70.220 (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, using the word does not go against WP:NPOV. Rapid intensification is an official term recognized by the American Meteorological Society, with an official definition. And by your logic, no information coming from the National Hurricane Center should be added on Wikipedia because 99% of the time, estimates on tropical cyclone strength and movement is up to a forecaster's discretion. I'd also like to point out that in your revision to the 2014 Pacific hurricane season page several days ago, you yourself used the term "rapid" to describe Amanda's intensification into a major hurricane; why the change of heart? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A fact by definition is someone else's opinion, and given that the NHC's opinion is highly reliable, then it's not biased, given that it is sourced. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Evan: I know what you are saying here, but you could do with at least some changes... For example, 1 = 1 is a fact but is not just an opinion. I do agree, however, that the NHC is not what I would consider as "biased." Dustin (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of Wikipedia guidelines WP:NOTBROKEN and MOS:NOPIPE

This is a clear issue that should not need additional discussion in my opinion, but regardless, seeing that my comments on the IP's talk page have been ignored, I will bring this here. There is no point in piping a wikilink in such a way as to always point to the direct link. At this point, as it seems that this IP does not know how to use a talk page, I will try to bring in other editors. Dustin (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either way is fine. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. These edits violate guidelines and "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". There is no reason whatsoever for which an exception should apply here the way I currently see it. Dustin (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And in any case, this IP has never discussed in any situation. Sometimes, it leaves edit summaries, but it has continuously refused to actually discuss issues and has even been blocked before for this very same behavior. Dustin (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your missing the point. It's not like the links are broken. It makes no difference either way. You need to learn to stop bringing up things that make no difference, regardless on whether it violates some obscure policy. How are you going to survive in the real world by acting like that? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make this into a personal issue. You care too little about the policies which make Wikipedia what it is, and these guidelines have reasons. You keep on maintaining that "it doesn't matter" attitude, but you are wrong. It does matter, else we wouldn't have any policies, guidelines, MOS, or anything else, for that matter. These aren't just unimportant, "obscure policies" that have been created just for fun. They have reasons, and if you don't care to help assess how applicable they are to this situation, then you may as well have never joined this discussion in the first place. Dustin (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they exist does not mean they have to be followed. This is already getting lame. My point (and I've been trying to hint this to you since May) is you can't follow every single rule in the god danm universe. Feel completely free to consider this uncivil if you want, but I'd by lying if I did not tell you this: It makes IMHO you look like an unreasonable creep and IMO is very annoying, to be totally honest, again, this is admittedly easily offensive, but I'm telling the total truth. Is the IP being unhelpful here? Yes, But why revert if it makes no real difference since the links to the article are provided anyhow, whether it bypasses a redirect or not. This simply is not worth 3RR's over. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This simply is not worth 3RR's over." - Yes. That is exactly the reason I brought this up. It isn't really an edit war because I will not proceed to make a fourth revert within the 24-hour period. Also, I am not being unreasonable, and have in fact provided plentiful reasoning for why I wanted to discuss this. You want to know why I am bringing this up? I have been reverted several times by the same IP breaking the guidelines who is edit warring, refuses to discuss, and now, is getting away with it. This IP should either learn to discuss or get off Wikipedia in my opinion. Now you would let this IP just continue with this refusal to take part in discussion because you don't care enough. If you don't care, what purpose does it serve you to join in this discussion? Also, by your logic, every editor who violates that guideline should be completely ignored, and we may as well trash the guideline, which is nonsense (not to say you are nonsensical, but what I mean is that that would mean every small-scale guideline/policy on Wikipedia may as well be removed, which would not be helpful). Dustin (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it's worth reverting back over either, and that's been my point all along. In answer to your second part, I'm not saying they should be removed, its that many of these smaller Wikipedia policy-related pages (especially essays) are not always helpful and are fairly unimportant/trival, which is the case here and not worth revering back and forth, as I just said. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]